SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom

zerohedge2021-04-13

Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

Dsownz
·2021-04-13
LUL like pls
回复
点赞
举报
Fongwu
·2021-04-13
Bad
回复
点赞
举报
Leo_T
·2021-04-13
Bad
回复
点赞
举报
收起
- KLS:
  Bad is good
  2021-04-13
  回复
  举报
- t1germeow:
  what about Grab spac
  2021-04-13
  回复
  举报
Dirui
·2021-04-13
Well
回复
1
举报
收起
- Leo_T:
  ok
  2021-04-13
  回复
  举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111921032?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-04-13 14:24","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1111921032","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom","media":"zerohedge","content":"<div>\nHaving dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":null,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-13 14:24 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nHaving dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":null,"symbol_name":null,"start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom","article_id":"1111921032","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111921032","pubTimestamp":1618295045,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":null,"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"zerohedge.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{},"translate_title":"SEC投下会计炸弹，引爆SPAC热潮","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{},"content_text":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.\nThat was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.\nTonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:\n\n In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.\n The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.\n\nShortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...\n\n We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.\n In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.\n\nSimply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.\nPerhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":false,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":345884606,"gmtCreate":1618300967705,"gmtModify":1634293867343,"author":{"id":"3576600703570094","authorId":"3576600703570094","name":"Dsownz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ae0edb0030955b916cb435f78b7fdd83","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3576600703570094","idStr":"3576600703570094"},"htmlText":"LUL like pls","listText":"LUL like pls","text":"LUL like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/345884606","repostId":1111921032,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111921032","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618295045,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111921032?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-13 14:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111921032","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug","content":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-13 14:24\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nHaving dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111921032","content_text":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.\nThat was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.\nTonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:\n\n In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.\n The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.\n\nShortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...\n\n We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.\n In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.\n\nSimply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.\nPerhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":345804673,"gmtCreate":1618295591192,"gmtModify":1634293887093,"author":{"id":"3577175280172865","authorId":"3577175280172865","name":"Fongwu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6df7d5c81bb73a5c46cdedb4d9c16569","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3577175280172865","idStr":"3577175280172865"},"htmlText":"Bad","listText":"Bad","text":"Bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/345804673","repostId":1111921032,"repostType":4,"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":345805838,"gmtCreate":1618295453624,"gmtModify":1634293888146,"author":{"id":"3577164655493669","authorId":"3577164655493669","name":"Leo_T","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4639e7c3fcdc38b65d6833798171bf2d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3577164655493669","idStr":"3577164655493669"},"htmlText":"Bad","listText":"Bad","text":"Bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/345805838","repostId":1111921032,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111921032","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618295045,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111921032?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-13 14:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111921032","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug","content":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-13 14:24\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nHaving dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111921032","content_text":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.\nThat was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.\nTonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:\n\n In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.\n The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.\n\nShortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...\n\n We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.\n In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.\n\nSimply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.\nPerhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4023010,"gmtCreate":1618297346326,"gmtModify":1635739734724,"authorId":3551655093075927,"author":{"id":3551655093075927,"idStr":"3551655093075927","authorId":3551655093075927,"name":"KLS","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/60fe00969bbce4cfecf0d17a38c77628","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":345805838,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Bad is good","text":"Bad is good","html":"Bad is good"},{"id":4024921,"gmtCreate":1618316409502,"gmtModify":1635739624378,"authorId":3577587542468334,"author":{"id":3577587542468334,"idStr":"3577587542468334","authorId":3577587542468334,"name":"t1germeow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e50accb79392099094ea6871ae999d81","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":345805838,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"what about Grab spac","text":"what about Grab spac","html":"what about Grab spac"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":345802128,"gmtCreate":1618295318264,"gmtModify":1634293888384,"author":{"id":"3576728357666184","authorId":"3576728357666184","name":"Dirui","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/028fdb43f6018331c0e01e03918d42c9","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3576728357666184","idStr":"3576728357666184"},"htmlText":"Well","listText":"Well","text":"Well","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/345802128","repostId":1111921032,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111921032","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618295045,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111921032?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-13 14:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111921032","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug","content":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-04-13 14:24\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nHaving dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.<blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.<blockquote>那是被跟踪的新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:<blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具.彭博社解释道：</blockquote> In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note. The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency. Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...<blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote> We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants. In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings. Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.<blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</blockquote> Perhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.<blockquote>也许更糟的是，已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC可能必须重述他们的财务业绩.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"><blockquote></blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111921032","content_text":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.\nThat was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.\nTonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:\n\n In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.\n The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.\n\nShortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...\n\n We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.\n In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.\n\nSimply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.\nPerhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4022893,"gmtCreate":1618295462023,"gmtModify":1635739742623,"authorId":3577164655493669,"author":{"id":3577164655493669,"idStr":"3577164655493669","authorId":3577164655493669,"name":"Leo_T","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4639e7c3fcdc38b65d6833798171bf2d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":345802128,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":4,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"isCrawlerRequest":true}